NE-2 and NE-4 chart errors

I just restarted my subscription to NACO for a select few instrument
charts and am not impressed with their quality. I just got my new
charts effective for 9/1 and found two errors in less than 5 minutes of
reviewing them. Here are the errors in case anyone is interested and
uses these charts (from the email I just sent to NACO):

NE-2:

The ILS RWY 6 approach for ELM (page 88) has the incorrect frequency
listed for approach control. The frequency listed is 119.48, but the
correct frequency is 119.45.

A minor error is that the punched holes aren't spaced properly and the
loose-leaf charts barely fit into my binder.


NE-4:

The alternative minimums section (pages E1 through E3) is for IAP NE-1,
not NE-4. The airports listed are all in MA, CT, ME, etc. and not PA
and WV.


Is this just a fluke or has their quality dropped in the 6 years or so
since I last used their charts?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Is this just a fluke or has their quality dropped in the 6 years or so
since I last used their charts?

Have you called them to inform them of the charting errors?

john smith wrote:

Have you called them to inform them of the charting errors?

Note the mention of an e-mail to NACO in his post.

At any rate, I can confirm the errors in my copies of the NACO plates,
so it's not just a one-off binding error. Pretty astonishing that
they'd put in the wrong alternate minimums! I guess I'll keep the old
NE4 plates around for those.

--Tom

john smith wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Is this just a fluke or has their quality dropped in the 6 years or so
since I last used their charts?


Have you called them to inform them of the charting errors?

I sent an email as I noted in my post. If I haven't heard anything by
later today, I'll try the phone. I didn't figure anybody would be home
last night at the time I found the errors.

Matt

wrote:

john smith wrote:

Have you called them to inform them of the charting errors?


Note the mention of an e-mail to NACO in his post.

At any rate, I can confirm the errors in my copies of the NACO plates,
so it's not just a one-off binding error. Pretty astonishing that
they'd put in the wrong alternate minimums! I guess I'll keep the old
NE4 plates around for those.

--Tom


Yes, I thought my mind was playing games as I scanned through and all of
the sudden saw airports in CT and VT!

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

Is this just a fluke or has their quality dropped in the 6 years or so
since I last used their charts?

Matt

Their quality control has dropped over the past several years, as has
Jeppesen's.

Matt Whiting wrote:
john smith wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Is this just a fluke or has their quality dropped in the 6 years or
so since I last used their charts?



Have you called them to inform them of the charting errors?


I sent an email as I noted in my post. If I haven't heard anything by
later today, I'll try the phone. I didn't figure anybody would be home
last night at the time I found the errors.

Matt

I received an email today saying that the errors I reported were in fact
errors (gotta love the government) and that they would be corrected by
NOTAM and the 9/29 change notice.

Matt

Matt,

I received an email today saying that the errors I reported were in fact
errors (gotta love the government) and that they would be corrected by
NOTAM and the 9/29 change notice.

My concern would not be the errors you found, but rather the errors you
didn't find.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:
Matt,


I received an email today saying that the errors I reported were in fact
errors (gotta love the government) and that they would be corrected by
NOTAM and the 9/29 change notice.


My concern would not be the errors you found, but rather the errors you
didn't find.

Yes. That is one of the reasons that I scan each new set of charts
looking at the obvious things (Takeoff and alternate minimums, SIDS,
STARS and the approaches at my home field). This is the first time I've
found errors so I was rather surprised to quickly find two errors.

Obviously, errors at unfamiliar fields would be much harder to find...

Matt

Hilton wrote:

Matt,

I received an email today saying that the errors I reported were in fact
errors (gotta love the government) and that they would be corrected by
NOTAM and the 9/29 change notice.

My concern would not be the errors you found, but rather the errors you
didn't find.

A valid concern.

The national airspace system is a bit like New Orleans, except the dikes
haven't quite caved in...yet.